I dunno if I am honest. I feel sad that the situation is such that she literally would be worse off if she took a job rather than being on benefits - and I can therefore sort of understand why she'd prefer to be at home looking after her children than going out to work only to be worse off. In that sense I think it's a bit of a non-story.
The thing that annoyed me though was that she was with a violent abusive partner, yet continued to have children with him despite (by her own admission) the relationship being horribly destructive and very off and on:
"I thought we?d be together for ever. But he cheated on me and was Âviolent - he?d smash up the house,? she explains. ?It was on-off, on-off for a long time, but we finally split up after he hit me and I thought: ?I?m not standing for that.? ?
She did, however, let him back into her bed on one further occasion two years later, when Billy, now four, was conceived.
It rather begs the question, though, that if she knew how unstable the relationship was why continue to have children ? in particular, the one who was conceived a good two years after they had finally ?split for good?.
?I was young and naïve and every time I got pregnant he would tell me he was going to change,? she says. ?Plus I?m a damn good mum. Why shouldn?t I have more kids if I wanted them??"
I don't know why but this really makes me cross. I know many women get into a situation with a violent partner and have children to unsuitable partners, but it just seems a bit shocking to me that she kept having children with this man!
Having said all this, I hate the Daily Mail and wouldn't put it past them to cobble together loads of sensationalist shite.